I thoroughly enjoyed OASC; I dreaded the thought of having to do it. I learnt a lot about myself in those few days and I enjoyed OIC even more, it is a great week.
I agree the process should be shorter. I disagree with the 12 month deadline to pass OIC after OASC because more often than not, they are all booked up, so you only actually have one or two chances in 12 months to do it. Nevertheless, from what I’ve seen, the 12 month deadline isn’t too strict. The point in the courses before OIC is that you’re supposed to be of a good standard prior to attending, as it isn’t really pass/fail.
I agree entirely. OASC was a good experience, and it was a privilege to get in the hangars and a taste of what a selection process feels like.
I didn’t mind doing OASC, and I understand why Wing might want to filter before sending candidates, but the timeline should be much better thought out… it shouldn’t take 14 months… also having the wing board at the end of the training day could have saved me a large round trip and another days weekend gone.
I like the idea of OiC and everyone says it is enjoyable, but I really wonder if it is entirely necessary. I like the idea of spending five days at Cranwell, and fully expect to enjoy it, however speaking with others it is clear that lots of people don’t share my thinking and see it as an obstacle.
I’m fortunate that I don’t have kids, for example, so disappearing for a few days gives my o/h a break from me! But for those with kids I can Imagine trying to justify 5 days holiday from work, to disappear on a course for a hobby that already takes up a lot of weeknight and weekend time, would go down like a bucket of cold sick at home.
I was lucky because the NHS gives me extra annual leave for reserve forces/cadet force activities, but I fully sympathise with those that don’t.
Why do you feel OIC is an obstacle? In my opinion, it’s definitely a necessity. For example, on my course there were 2 ladies that had never even tried on their blues or heard of half of the RAFAC lingo that we were speaking of; they were CCF. Some people left with a lot of improvement to do, but at least they knew what needed improving on. It will amaze you how little self awareness some people have! At the end of the day, we wear a military uniform, so therefore there has to be some standard. Although, it isn’t pass/fail, so that undermines my point a wee’ bit.
I think if you go into OIC with the viewpoint that it’s unnecessary, you won’t enjoy it or get much from it. The staff at ATF are a good laugh and good at what they do.
I’m not stressed about OiC, I think I’ll enjoy it and as you mention, come away with areas to improve etc. So I’m alright.
Looking at the syllabus I just wonder if it is necessary for a five day residential… not for my sake, but for those that are going to struggle to meet that.
I’m just saying what I’ve heard others say; the original comment was about making a simple, painless process…
Sqn commanders chat
Sector commanders chat
Put in paperwork
Pre-Uniform Course (1 Saturday)
Pre-Uniform Selection Course (1 Saturday, 1 Sunday)
Wing Board (1 Saturday)
OASC (whole weekend)
<for me 14 months from application>
OiC (whole week)
<for me it will be 25 months from application>
Not simple or painless.
In fairness, the old wing/region interviews and done were not fit for purpose either, so I imagine something between the old and new system would be more user friendly.
I’ve not really looked into it that deeply but I can’t say that I feel particularly well disposed towards the system of “Show Your Potential” and then “Maximise Your Potential” courses prior to going into uniform.
On the surface it seems like a lot of faff to get someone into a uniform.
I don’t think they’re mandated in every wing. I never did any.
It was Wing Filter and then OASC about 10 months later. There was preparation a day for OASC; it was voluntary and mostly to give someone an idea of the layout, so wasn’t pass/fail either. OASC is quite daunting to a newcomer, so they have their uses.
Anyway, we best get back to topic before @pEp comes looking!
That’s not a CCF thing. That’s a failure of the TEST Officer/SNCO to prepare them. My TEST Sgt wasn’t allowed to book me on the course until he’d done a uniform and drill test on the contingent. Then he could book me onto a weekend course and only after passing that was I able to ask him to book me onto an OIC course.
While I enjoyed OIC I didn’t learn anything useful from it. Every topic had been covered in greater depth and higher relevance at Wing or sqn.
It is common with CCF, though. Two guys on mine had never worn their blues (one didn’t have half of them) prior to OIC, but if they hadn’t done OIC then their CCFs would have had to close because they had no officers and that was the last course of the summer break.
I generally enjoyed ATF courses learnt loads I think they’re a good opportunity to network and learn impartially away from wing/region politics. I think theres scope for more optional training from ATF but would require investment in head count due to a packed calendar…specifically I’d like to do Week 3 of the DI Course which would normally be all the funeral & Ceremonial stuff, just to kind of complete it and have a full and complete understanding. Not try and work out my own interpretation from 818.
Secondly the fabled WO course
Some of the secondary courses ive done are alot more laid back and more enjoyable. Arms Drill probably being the best
Why do you say that? It’s the system we use to appoint NCOs…
In the good ol’ days of VR(T), you could argue that a spell at OASC was completely necessary - we were, after all, receiving an Air Force commission.
Now we don’t, I can’t think of any good reason why our adult staff recruitment process needs to differ at all?
Squadron Commanders aren’t appointed because they’ve passed OASC - otherwise we wouldn’t have any NCO OICs. OASC isn’t used because we want to make sure Officers don’t embarrass themselves on camp - because NCOs go on camp too. Being a WSO doesn’t depend on an OASC pass, or we wouldn’t have NCO WSOs. So why do we need to go through OASC at all?
The process for all uniformed staff should be something like:
Attend a briefing weekend, which includes a filter interview.
Wing board.
OIC is for teaching baby officers the basics. Running selection courses etc at wing just diverts manpower away from our main business.
I get that, and I welcomed the move to an OASC selection because of that reason. But that was for VR(T) commissions, not CFC ones. And also before the OASC process was cut to one day.
Kinda feel like I’m the only one on the side of keeping OASC.
It isn’t necessarily the reasons that you state, why I think we need OASC. It isn’t so that people don’t embarrass themselves on stations, but for someone to demonstrate leadership qualities that are suited for the role of an officer. OASC doesn’t stop someone embarrassing themselves on a station; OIC does that (supposedly).
Traditionally, you would have officers filling the posts that you mention, so NCOs filling officer roles (WSOs’) is a non-point.
Officers are supposed to have leadership qualities and OASC is the opportunity to demonstrate that. Furthermore, it takes people out of their comfort zones and thus instills confidence. You have to remember, OASC is a selection process for the regulars, which we adopted. Our selection process does not need to be so vigorous, but we do still need a standard, otherwise what is the point?
I would 100% advocate keeping OASC, even if it was for just the positive impact it can have on a person.
The OiC teaching baby officers to be officers bit is interesting too…
Having been a CI for years, having been Training Officer and covered the Adj role too when we had a period of transition, and care taking the squadron when the OC spot was empty - already running courses for wing/region etc etc, Is OiC really necessary?
Maybe OiC is needed if you’re going into uniform with less than say 3/4/5 years experience of being staff already…?
Just trying to think of what could break down barriers and encourage others to take the plunge…
I’d argue that, no, it doesn’t.
My trip was last year and there was none of this. The only ‘lessons’ about how to comport yourself in a station came from other attendees on the course who had experience.
Hence why I said supposedly. I do get that people aren’t a perfect product at the end, so I agree with you in a sense, especially as it isn’t pass/fail.
This boils back down to the preparatory courses and why someone is supposed to be of a good standard prior to OIC.
If you look at the prep reading for OIC (yes, I’m sad and I did), an APO is supposed to attend his parent station mess prior to attendance at OIC and your Wg Cdr is supposed to sign to say this has been done.
Which begs the question, if Leadership is such a big deal to us officers, why do we receive zero further training in it during our “career”? And if leadership is so essential to our role, how come NCOs can fill those roles too?? But I digress. Is one day, and a 12 minute interview, an effective test for someone to aspiring to be a RAFAC officer?
Personally, I feel that taking it back in house, and adapting the Army officer selection process would benefit us massively. The Army have a 24 hour Army Officer Selection Board Briefing, which includes an interview and leadership tasks, which you need to pass to progress onto the AOSB Main board.
We could run a weekend RAFAC version of that at wing level, say every 3 months, and then board the candidates 2 months later. You would be empowering Wing Commanders to fill officer vacancies, whilst shortening the time is takes from application to appointment. If we trust Wing Commanders to recommend appointment for NCO staff, why on earth can they not recommend staff for a CFC?
Plus, it would stop all of this bull where potential officers fail a wing board, but get offered a SNCO role instead. Ultimately, we all just want to volunteer with the organisation, and the only difference I can see, is the type of role they feel they can best work in.
And if I’d called up RAF Shawbury and asked to spend some time in the Mess for no reason they’d have hung up on me… They - quite rightly - have far better things to be doing.
Going to OASC, fine. Let them assess you for leadership potential and ability to work through problems, face the interview, etc. But passing that should be enough for becoming an officer. OIC serves no purpose, especially when officers from CCF and VGS don’t have to go through the same hoops and be of the same standard. It makes it pointless.